THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle.
Pretty sharp fella; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally
he made a mistake.

One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it
come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was
moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left
his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was
not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption
that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded
that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe
had to move around it.

Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another
explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait
about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained
just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of
motion.

But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well
with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe,
unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.

Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt
on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses
that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as
it crossed the moon was the same no matter place in the sky the eclipse
took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such
a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle
curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody
could explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth
spinning beneath it.

But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered)
universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV,
or even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar
with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the
night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally
pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed foreword. This behavior
was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did
not have an explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version
of the Bible, the word "planet" appears only once, and the only as an object
to be sacrificed to.

There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth,
moving in its inner orbit, overtake an outer planet, it will appear to
hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path.
But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle.
What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some
way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the
religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than
re-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed
onto a suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory
explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that
the planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed
smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as seen from
Earth.

Epicycles was extremely popular with the church, and scholars at universities
with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this theory. And
it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not accurately
predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort was expended
trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual motions
of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the epicycles
had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did not match
the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the theory,
but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to the
evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in
error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo
was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano
Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really
just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own
planets.

In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo
and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong.
The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles
on the epicycles. he models of the universe which are based on a moving
Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets
as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular
basis.

The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles was
not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.

The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very
well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and
still refuse to discuss Bruno. and the Bible, presumed to be the perfect
word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars
(Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5).

It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite
our technological prowess.

J.CROW'S®

In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects
which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards
the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery
concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it
was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity,
called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed
fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that
observed fact that the universe was expanding.

Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because
for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had
to originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". The "Big Bang"
coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case
with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religions institutions
sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including
the then prevalent "steady state" theory.

Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang"
might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity,
and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields
so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to
differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would
be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born.

Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen
provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might
not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption,
great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable
to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation.
A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the
"Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics
behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work
is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the
epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "he rules just
didn't apply when we need them not to apply".

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic
Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion.
and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like
Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the
signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation.
The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final
roof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory
celebrated.

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed
motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate
about the radiation signal detected in space. When the satellite COBE was
sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead
of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex
and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption
that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang",
research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing
theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from
any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was
right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.

Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you
would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar
System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy
elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes
creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes
in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in
space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System,
then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions
of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang,
viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth
lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the
sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation.
But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved"
creation myths ace a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture
and being burned alive at the stake.

So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent
"Big Bang" that when William G Tifft submitted his first article on the
quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal
published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled
to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.

The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to
the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as
devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth
was the center of the universe.

Edwin Hubble (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation
for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative
to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly,
the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.

But they aren't.

The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet
intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced
solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means
that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the
red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the
observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over
vast distances without respect to relative velocity.

Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no
moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain
why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which
means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit
the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that
created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this
on.

But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated
by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift
is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared
in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in
the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles
have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke,
only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift,
which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang"
creation.

Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination
of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes
and TV programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous
theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved
it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not.

Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by
the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular.

UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is
the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive
black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going
to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon
the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not
apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology
theory is that the universe enjoyed a
period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the
elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included,
were functioning as we see them today.

Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial
egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given
that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate
is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html
of 2.6*1060.

From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon
by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity
of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe
in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational
constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

This works out to an event horizon light years across!

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim
the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental
forces, the entirety of the universe' mass was still well within the event
horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a
true singularity is irrelevent, Newton's equation provides an equivilent
gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have
produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the
theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would
have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an
escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.